Foster Kids Share What Their Foster Parents Could Have Done To Improve Their Quality Of Life
If you can't parent.... don't!
Raising a child is life's most difficult and rewarding challenge. A lot of kids are taken in by families and fostered because their birth families weren't up to the task. All kids need love, no matter if they share your DNA or not. Now no parent is perfect but there are somethings that foster parents should take into account and learn in order to make sure the children they are choosing to help are receiving the best care possible.
Redditor u/animalsaremyfriends reached out the to the foster kids on the net to ask... Foster kids of Reddit, what do you wish your foster parents would have known so your experience would have been better? If you're going to foster, listen up.
Your foster kids are your real kids!
Your biological kids were mean to me.
I had that experience and I'm sorry that you had it too. The first foster home that I was in, they had adopted daughters and the older one of the two would constantly terrorize Me by hitting me in the head and pulling my hair and pushing me and just all kinds of terrible stuff. And her younger daughter saw it and even went with me to the Foster mother and backed up my claims of what was happening but she still had me shipped off to another foster home and when she sat me down right before I left and asked me do you know why I'm having you moved? I said no and she said because I can't have you telling lies about my daughter.
I said I'm not lying and she said well I think you are. Well I never saw her again thank God. I also wish that they knew terrifying it is to be away from home no matter how bad your home situation was. And to live with the knowledge that just as you start to get comfortable and get used to your living situation you can be moved at a moment's notice. Also how hard it is to have to constantly switch schools and make new friends and try to keep up with the old ones. And to have your things thrown in a garbage bag in a quick move. It makes you feel like you're worthless and that you're garbage and that no one will ever really love you like they love their own children.
Family Dog
My third foster parent said to me that she would care more if the family dog or a stranger on the street got hit by a car and died than if I did. I think it was in the context of telling me her kid was priority. I was removed from that home a bit later.
I choose not to give that woman power over me anymore, either through anger or pain. But for a long time it sucked. She was a teacher at the school I continued to attend as well...
The great thing is we get to move on and choose not to be miserable people like they were.
Kids aren't generic.
You didn't need to lock up the brand name foods from me. You didn't need to lock me out of the house any time you weren't home.
First Fam
First family I was placed with, I did not care for. They liked to punish you, and make you sit in your bedroom all day and all night. My sister and I were together at first, then she was causing problems so they put her in another home. Months later my social worker asked if I was happy where I was, I said no. I was about 6-7 at the time. They put me in a new home, where the family was huge, and everyone was awesome. They wanted to adopt me but my dad took me out after about 3 years cause the state said he had to pay for me or something like that. Then my life went to hell with my step mom, and I spent summers with my foster family because they were loving, caring and just all around good people.
Don't give up so easy!
Try to remember that they were taken away from their homes for a reason, and there might be an enormous amount of "culture shock" for them in a normal household. My first foster family kicked me out for leaving a tissue on the floor and forgetting to replace the toilet paper roll twice in a row. I came from a hoarder crack house with no running water. For the first several years of my life, I had to use a coffee can to do my business and often times all we had to wipe with was old socks that then went into the trash. So... yes I was in the wrong there, but I still think sending me to a group home was a bit of an extreme reaction. In their defense I was their first foster kid though.
Return To Sender
That threatening to "send me back" when I acted out, was really messed up. Also that I don't take threats idly, as you found out.
How about we stick you?
You didn't have to beat me with the sticks you broke off the bushes because I didn't eat the veggies. I never had them before.
Socialize
I wish they had understood that not letting me around other kids (I wasn't allowed to socialize outside of school), telling me I was a rude kid, and making me stay in a dark room with nothing to do (they owned a mattress store, and when they were working and I wasn't in school, I was sitting in the storage room on top of the mattresses (don't worry, they were wrapped)), was really horrible for my health, and I have had lifelong medical issues because of it, which began while I was living there.
Talk to me...
Someone should have asked me questions. Everyone laid back, letting me talk about things if I wanted to bring them up. Only I was never allowed to bring things up before and I thought their lack of questions meant I wasn't supposed to talk about any of it. So I didn't. This extended to other areas too. Once my parent's rights were terminated, for example, I was free for adoption. They thought if wanted to be adopted, I would ask. But I couldn't ask something like that, there was no way.
Obligatory not me, but my parents fostered probably twenty kids in ten or so years. They treated every kid that came into our home exactly as they treated their legal children: as family. The things we heard about other foster homes was horrific. One memory stands out most: we had siblings, a boy and girl come for a few months after severe abuse and neglect.
About a week in, we discovered that the girl was only eating half her food at mealtimes and hiding the rest in her room for her and her brother, which we learned is common for foster children. They aren't always sure where their next meal may come from in an unstable home so they stock up just in case. Well my mom gathered her and her little brother up, marched them into the kitchen, opened up the pantry and fridge and told them that they could eat whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted so long as it was eaten in the kitchen or dining room because she wanted to make sure it wasn't going to go stale or attract bugs in their bedrooms.
I was maybe ten at the time, the kids were seven or eight and six. They both were just stunned and kept asking, "even this? Even these?" And my mom kept assuring them that anything they wanted was theirs to eat whenever they were hungry. Both kids cried and hugged her. I never realized how privileged I was until I saw children crying over cereal and granola bars. They had literally never been in a home where they were able to eat when and what they wanted. She even made sure that they went shopping with her so they could choose foods they liked.
Both kids were significantly underweight when they moved in and when they left to live with family out of state, my mom was thrilled to tell the case worker that they were both now in a perfectly healthy weight range. After that, when we'd have new kids come in, we always gave them a tour and made sure they knew the kitchen would always be open for them. Around half of them were surprised or even shocked and "tested" my parents by eating things at weird hours to make sure my folks were good on their promise. They always were. I guess my point is that there are some things that seem super obvious to people who've never been in a dire situation aren't as obvious to someone coming from a broken place.
A Note From Then To Now
If you can, send them a card from time to time. You have no idea how much they wonder how you turned out and what you are up to. My parents have fostered for ages and that type of stuff is what drives them.
My mom had one foster child pulled from our house right before Christmas because the child exhibited some serious violent tendencies at school . That kid's wrapped Christmas presents have been stored in a closet for about twenty years now. Kind of think mom expects her to come calling one day so she can still give them to her.
Parents and good foster parents never forget and always want to hear from you.
Sadistic
My parents had one foster kid whose birth parents evidently made him smash his own toys to bits when he got in trouble. Was a serious wtf for all of us. Kid did something wrong and you had to watch him to make sure he didn't destroy something. And I am not talking being mad and pummeling it. I mean being quite and weeping while pulling something apart bit by bit. One of the saddest things I have ever witnessed.
Feminists Slam Man Telling Them They Can't Have Both Chivalry And Equality
A man on Twitter informed feminists they had to choose between chivalry and equality.
He was promptly raked over the coals for even assuming an antiquated concept would be considered as a viable option.
Twitter user @Rich_Cooper stated:
"Dear feminists. You either get equality or chivalry. You can't have both."
Dear feminists. You either get equality or chivalry. You can't have both.— Richard Cooper (@Richard Cooper) 1536083523.0
One user responded:
"I'll take equality. I don't need special treatment."
@Rich_Cooper #BenevolentSexism is still #sexism. I'll take equality. I don't need special treatment.— ☮️ Minkajane ☮️ (@☮️ Minkajane ☮️) 1537276790.0
Cooper's rhetorical question did not go over so well. Both women and men expressed their disdain for his message.
One male user observed that chivalry was irrelevant and treating everyone with kindness and respect was compulsory.
"What people care about is caring, empathic [sic], considerate, thoughtful people, NOT whether THEIR door is held for them or THEIR meal is paid for them."
"Are there gender stereotypes in het[erosexual] dating? Sure. But that's separate from being a warm, giving, caring, grounded person."
@Rich_Cooper What people care about is caring, empathic, considerate, thoughtful people, NOT whether THEIR door is… https://t.co/wlGHWRzKLi— Mark W. Wilson, MD (@Mark W. Wilson, MD) 1537276816.0
Some women got right down to the point.
@Rich_Cooper Translation: I will only be nice to you if you agree to be subservient to me— Elizabeth Noll (@Elizabeth Noll) 1537292709.0
@Rich_Cooper Gotta love when a man tells women what they can and can't have. Thanks for the heads up buddy 😉 https://t.co/gDMJscuTac— Hannah ✊ (@Hannah ✊) 1537285112.0
@Rich_Cooper Translation: I couldn’t possibly be expected to treat women as equals, show them respect, and still feel like a man.— Dom (@Dom) 1537293169.0
@Rich_Cooper We are sooooo bored with "chivalry" which stems from the courtly love period in the middle ages when w… https://t.co/wRho1a9DTz— Jeanthejust (@Jeanthejust) 1537280103.0
@Rich_Cooper Dear man. As a feminist, I open doors for men all the time. I also offer my seat to men in need on t… https://t.co/uxdwfh1kEM— My ovaries dream of puppers (@My ovaries dream of puppers) 1537502301.0
The notion of chivalry and equality are mutually exclusive and not a lot of people thought it was a major priority for feminists.
Common courtesy is not chivalry.
@Rich_Cooper Nah. That's some real childlike, oversimplified thinking. There are obviously more than these two op… https://t.co/lUqnEJhIAp— TheQuietRanger (@TheQuietRanger) 1537342901.0
@Rich_Cooper Wow, I had no idea that feminists were campaigning for chivalry, thanks for the Valuable Insight lol… https://t.co/iK62FTM9WY— Tracy Campbell the DM (Dungeon Mom) (@Tracy Campbell the DM (Dungeon Mom)) 1537294172.0
@Rich_Cooper I hold the door open for a guy walking into Starbucks behind me. Tomorrow, he might do the same for me… https://t.co/xWQEu6QHrM— Emma Scott (@Emma Scott) 1537294526.0
This user pointed out the fact that chivalry stems from a history of men outdoing other men. The concept had very little to do with women.
"Chivalry is a medieval concept of men dressing to impress other men. It has little to do with equality."
"Some men were on top, other men were beneath them. Historically, women were rarely invited into the process."
@Rich_Cooper @kent_imig Chivalry is a medieval concept of men dressing to impress other men. It has little to do wi… https://t.co/m8YPUkaUzm— Mark Findlay (@Mark Findlay) 1537257080.0
Neil Bradley described the outdated concept of chivalry as one that implies men being superior to women in a September 8, 2017, article for Medium publications.
"Examples: opening the door for a woman, paying for a woman's meal, gesturing for a woman to go first. The justification is either that women are not physically as strong (to open the door), able to provide (pay for their own meal), or are more deserving of compassion than men (allowing women to go first)."
Bradley also added that he wants to treat others the way he wants to be treated and asked if that approach should be motivated by chivalry or equality.
"If the genders are to be considered equal and treated equally, how a man treats a woman will essentially be the same as how a man treats a man."
"The obligation to open the door, pay for the meal, and let women go first vanishes. Men do not do this to other men, therefore why do it for women?"
His final take was that the two concepts can't co-exist. Either one is chivalrous or treats everyone as equals.
At the end of the day, people were happy to show chivalry the door.
@seanrmccauley @DoverCook @ShappiKhorsandi @Rich_Cooper @MarkFindlay26 @kent_imig Nobody needs chivalry. Equality a… https://t.co/isq5Fo84iU— John Dougherty (@John Dougherty) 1537357843.0
H/T - GettyImages, Twitter, Indy100, Medium
Katy Perry, P!nk, Paul McCartney And More Sign Letter Threatening To Boycott SiriusXM Radio
Hundreds of artists have signed a letter threatening a boycott if SiriusXM's parent company, Liberty Media, doesn't back down from opposing the Music Modernization Act.
The act, which was expected to pass through Congress, streamlines royalty payments in the new age of digital technology, but it seems SiriusXM is objecting to a small section that would have the satellite radio company paying royalties on recordings dating before 1972.
That's a whole lot of songs and a whole lot of money the company is hoping to skip out on paying, but not if stars like Paul McCartney, P!nk, Stevie Nicks, Sia, Carly Simon, Gloria Estefan, Mick Fleetwood, Don Henley, Max Martin, and Katy Perry can help it.
The letter read, in part:
I'm writing you with grave concern about SiriusXM's opposition to the Music Modernization Act (Classics Act included).
We are all aware of your company's objections and trepidation but let me say that this is an opportunity for SiriusXM to take a leadership position. As you are aware, 415 Representatives and 76 Senators have already cosponsored the MMA along with industry consensus. It's SiriusXM vs all of us. We can either fight to the bitter end or celebrate this victory together. Rather than watch bad press and ill will pile up against SiriusXM, why not come out supporting the most consequential music legislation in 109 years? We do not want to fight and boycott your company but we will as we have other opponents. Stand with us! Be brave and take credit for being the heroes who helped the MMA become historic law! Momentum is building against SiriusXM and you still have an opportunity to come out on the right side of history. We look forward to your endorsement but the fire is burning and only you can put this out.
SiriusXM resoponded with a letter of their own:
Over the past several weeks, we have been the subject of some stinging attacks from the music community and artists regarding our views on the Music Modernization Act. Contrary to new reports and letters, this is really not about a SiriusXM victory, but implementing some simple, reasonable and straightforward amendments to MMA. There is nothing in our "asks" that gut the MMA or kills the Act. So let's talk about the substance of the amendments we propose, because we truly do not understand the objections or why these concepts have incited such a holy war.ontrary to the accusations, SiriusXM has proposed three simple amendments to the MMA.
First, SiriusXM has asked that the CLASSICS Act recognize that it has already licensed all of the pre-1972 works it uses. This amendment would ensure that artists – the people who are supposed to be at the heart of the MMA – receive 50% of the monies under those existing licenses. Is that unfair? Just today, Neil Diamond wrote in the LA Times that: "I receive a small amount of songwriting royalties, but no royalties as the recording artist." How can that happen? To date, SiriusXM has paid nearly $250 million dollars in pre-'72 royalties to the record labels. We want to make sure that a fair share of the monies we have paid, and will pay, under these licenses gets to performers. Without this provision, artists may never see any of the money SiriusXM paid, and will pay, for the use of pre-1972 works. Artists not getting paid hurts our business!
Second, Sirius XM thinks that the fair standard to use in rate setting proceedings is the standard that Congress chose in 1995 and confirmed again in 1998 – which is called the 801(b) standard. However, we are willing to move the "willing buyer/willing seller" standard contained in the MMA. In exchange, we have asked for the same concession that the MMA grants to other digital music services, but we were left out of — simply that the rates that were set last year for five years now apply for ten years. We thought this was a fair compromise when we read the "new" MMA that was released this weekend by the Senate, and are willing to live by that compromise.
Third, SiriusXM is asking the simple question: "Why are we changing the rate court evidence standard for musical compositions in this legislation so that it gives another advantage to broadcasters over satellite radio and streaming services?" There is no policy rationale for this change to tilt the playing field further in their favor, and frankly no one has been able to explain it to us. It is only fair that we debate why the change to Section 114(i) is in the MMA.
Did you all catch that? It sounds like lawyer speak for "we don't really want to say where we stand."
It seems all the letters were for naught. The Music Modernization Act passed in the U.S. Senate.
The #MusicModernizationAct has been passed by the U.S. Senate! 🎶 Along with our members across the country, we're e… https://t.co/52yNhtV4zk— Recording Academy / GRAMMYs (@Recording Academy / GRAMMYs) 1537318533.0
@kayhanley @SIRIUSXM Hi @kayhanley, I absolutely support the #MusicModernizationAct. I signed on as a cosponsor ear… https://t.co/j4JHXpLBxI— Elizabeth Warren (@Elizabeth Warren) 1537225190.0
People said this was impossible. Some even worked hard to make it impossible, even telling outright lies about wh… https://t.co/iMTlwJLWVw— Future of Music Coalition (@Future of Music Coalition) 1537309844.0
We're thrilled to share that the Senate has unanimously voted to pass the #MusicModernizationAct, an historic miles… https://t.co/Uuy2Yp8zCw— ASCAP (@ASCAP) 1537311517.0
It was time to celebrate and dance in the streets.
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP Grateful. That says it all. Grateful past language for the sweet souls who worked so hard to mak… https://t.co/JSeUNCwFSd— Paul Williams (@Paul Williams) 1537319434.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams YES!!!! Songwriters are dancing everywhere!— James Grey (@James Grey) 1537315642.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams Thank you for helping us all organize to get this done #MusicModernizationAct— Tangent Recording (@Tangent Recording) 1537311639.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams Greatness Is What Greatness Does....And This Is Great.— Eddie C Person Jr (@Eddie C Person Jr) 1537365270.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams #Love it!— CKGTHEDON (@CKGTHEDON) 1537315443.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams Fantastic News! Thank You U.S. Senate ~> Pass it House Of Representatives ~> Sig… https://t.co/tukiZ8Ryug— MarkAlexanderCarroll (@MarkAlexanderCarroll) 1537321589.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams Simply amazing hard work pays off.— PedroBarr (@PedroBarr) 1537320953.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams Thank all of you for your tireless efforts and work.Protecting what is important… https://t.co/goFps7yu2V— Roney Hooks (@Roney Hooks) 1537317136.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams I am so thankful for this wonderful change. We songwriters deserve it!— J.R. FOWLER (@J.R. FOWLER) 1537322119.0
As the saying goes, honest pay for honest work.
Some Residents Of Uranus, Missouri Are Not Happy About The Name Of Their New Local Newspaper 😆
There's nothing like a good pun about human anatomy. Really gets the juices flowing!
The Uranus Examiner is coming to this Missouri town. Yes, really. https://t.co/RKy7kDcCFT— The Kansas City Star (@The Kansas City Star) 1536865442.0
Owners of the new Uranus Examiner must have been snickering as they announced the paper's name. Apparently, it's caused quite the controversy in the small town of Uranus, Missouri, over the last few days.
Residents are divided over whether the pun is an embarrassment or perfectly snarky:
“It’s a serious newspaper!” declares the managing editor of the Uranus Examiner. @nypost https://t.co/uig5eYxT2t— Bryan A. Garner (@Bryan A. Garner) 1537038088.0
Folks on the internet responded with maturity and composure after learning about the Uranus Examiner.
Oh, wait. No they didn't.
@qikipedia Uranus Examiner... it's got a nice ring to it 😀.— Roy Elliott (@Roy Elliott) 1537364058.0
I pitched “The Regina Monologues” as the name for my column at the Regina Leader-Post and was unceremoniously turn… https://t.co/aejjXcooWK— Jana G. Pruden (@Jana G. Pruden) 1536938407.0
If we ever colonize Uranus, the hardest part will be picked a newspaper name. "The Uranus Examiner"? Gonna be rough.— Scott Johnson (@Scott Johnson) 1537192690.0
@qikipedia How is it I've lived in Missouri my whole life and never gone through Uranus— Joshua Ryman, Sigma Grindcore Consultant (@Joshua Ryman, Sigma Grindcore Consultant) 1537366074.0
The newspaper name is a source of controversy — “Butt I like it,” the Uranus mayor said. https://t.co/xZWn4qthd1— Kaitlyn Alanis (@Kaitlyn Alanis) 1536865208.0
If you think about it... there might actually be a method to the madness here. The brand new paper's name has received widespread media coverage over this past week. Simply put... everyone's talking about Uranus.
In terms of publicizing their new venture, the owners of the Uranus Examiner have actually done a pretty sweet job!
In the video above, a woman suggests the paper should have been called "The Pulaski County Examiner."
If you ask me, that's TOTALLY BORING, and wouldn't have generated as much interest and publicity for the paper. So while the name might be cringeworthy to some, you can bet Uranus that it'll stick around. Who knows, Uranus might even grow as a result!
H/T: Indy100, The Kansas City Star
Woman Was Fired For Refusing To Wear A Bra At Work—And Now She's Suing
Christina Schell, from Alberta, Canada, stopped wearing bras three years ago citing health reasons.
While Schell did not specify the health reasons, she did state she finds them to be "horrible."
But after her refusal to sign or adhere to a new enforced dress code policy to wear a bra or tank top under her work shirt at a golf course grill where she worked, Schell was promptly fired.
Now, the 25-year-old has filed a human rights violation against the Osoyoos Golf Club, Osoyoos, in British Columbia, Canada.
Schell said:
"I don't think any other human being should be able to dictate another person's undergarments."
When she asked the general manager, Doug Robb, why she had to comply, the manager told her the mandate was for her protection.
Robb allegedly said:
"I know what happens in golf clubs when alcohol's involved."
After losing her job, she brought the case to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and told them the club's dress code was discriminatory because the rule didn't apply towards male employees.
Schell told CBC:
"It's gender-based and that's why it's a human rights issue. I have nipples and so do the men."
David Brown, an employment lawyer in Kelowna, BC, said gender-specific dress codes could be viewed as discriminatory under the BC Human Rights Code.
He stated:
"It's an interesting question as to whether or not an employer can dictate the underwear that women can wear, but they don't say anything about the underwear that men can wear, and does that create an adverse impact on the individual?"
Brown added:
"If this policy is found to be discrimination, the next question is does the employer have a bonafide occupational requirement to essentially impose this on the individual?"
"I'm kind of scratching my head as to what that occupational requirement would be."
@GlobalBC The policy is sexist the peopl supporting it are sexist. Hope she wins her complaint— Lori bell (@Lori bell) 1529692660.0
@Shelby_Thom @WoodfordCHNL @GlobalOkanagan @GlobalBC Then men should have to wear either a tank top or undershirt— caffene fiend (@caffene fiend) 1529624161.0
@SoldByBrock @Shelby_Thom @GlobalOkanagan @GlobalBC What does common courtesy have to do with wearing a bra? Breast… https://t.co/ZVI2xDdpgf— M Shumway (@M Shumway) 1529843759.0
As for the tank top option, due to working under oftentimes extreme heat serving tables outsides, Schell did not want to wear another layer of clothes just because of her gender.
Schell said:
"It was absurd. Why do you get to dictate what's underneath my clothes?"
Employment lawyer Nadia Zaman told CBC that the club can enforce a gender-specific policy as they deem necessary as long as the establishment can prove it is for the occupational safety of its workers.
But the attorney questioned if forcing female employees to wear a bra was applicable in this case.
Zaman stated:
"If they simply require that female employees wear a bra but then they don't have a similar requirement for males, and they can't really justify that … then there is a risk that their policy's going to be deemed to be discriminatory."
Under British Columbia's discrimination law, it is illegal for employers:
'to discriminate against any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin'.
@GlobalBC @globalnews Logistically bras or the absence of does not impact health or work performance. That is my v… https://t.co/65cLHBMowf— Louisette Lanteigne (@Louisette Lanteigne) 1529769211.0
McDonald's employee Kate Gosek, 19, agrees with Schell in that the dress code is "unnecessary." She too was harassed by her employers at a McDonald's in Selkirk, Manitoba, over refusing to wear a bra.
"She just told me that I should put on a bra because, McDonald's—we are a polite restaurant and no one needs to see that."
Schell's case sparked plenty of debates on Twitter.
@DunnMan77 @GlobalBC It's just discriminatory, woman shouldn't have to wear bras if they don't want to. As well as… https://t.co/RXhRVWUuNy— Mary Johnson (@Mary Johnson) 1529685276.0
@DunnMan77 @GlobalBC Men do not have to wear underpants if they don't want to. As of right now there are no laws to… https://t.co/l8FuPVybWo— Mary Johnson (@Mary Johnson) 1529686418.0
@GlobalBC Women have the right not to be forced to wear a bra Shaving & makeup also is a choice. If you want to do… https://t.co/Ybkj6PLDnD— Lozan (@Lozan) 1529686156.0
@Lozan72 @GlobalBC I would completely understand her and your argument if we were talking about a potential law to… https://t.co/trRyNAubn4— Chris George (@Chris George) 1529690293.0
@GlobalBC This story frustrates me. There's no dress code equivalent for men? Well if I saw the outline of a male s… https://t.co/5YbAvXKRcO— Molly Max (@Molly Max) 1529705327.0
Schell is not alone in her disdain for bras.
@GlobalBC I personally HATE wearing a #bra absolutely hate it with passion and unashamed to admit it. I HATE BEING… https://t.co/GEi3LtxIDa— Lozan (@Lozan) 1529686305.0
Schell is still waiting to hear from the Human Rights Commission about her claim.
H/T - GettyImages, Twitter, Indy100, CBC